The property is a detached
house, and the application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension. As I was unable to view the drawings
for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further
details.

The key issue was whether the
proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(f), which states that “Development is not permitted by
Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and … (i) extend beyond the
rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres, or (ii) be within 7 metres of any boundary of the
curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse”.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“[The application site] is
a two storey detached house. The proposed two storey extension would extend some 7.7 metres from the rear of the
upper floor wall of the original dwelling. Class A of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (which I will refer to as the GPDO) applies to the
enlargement, improvement or other alteration of dwellinghouses. Such development is permitted by Class A
provided it does not fall within any of the specified exclusions as set out in paragraphs A.1 and A.2. Paragraph
A.1(f) provides that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than
one storey and (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres, or (ii) be
within 7 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the
dwellinghouse.

The appellant’s view is
that the correct interpretation of this paragraph is that the word “or” linking parts (i) and (ii) means that
complying with either part overcomes the limitation. In this case it is argued that the proposed extension would
comply with part (ii) as it would not be within 7 metres of the rear boundary.

However, my interpretation
of Class A.1(f) is that any proposed development which is excluded by either of the limitations would not be
permitted development. The recently published guidance, Permitted Development for Householders – Technical
Guidance (DCLG August 2010) makes it clear at page 20 that the Class A.1(f)(ii) exclusion is in addition
to the Class A.1(f)(i) exclusion, as does the Extensions mini-guide published on the Planning Portal, which
states that “Extensions of more than one storey must not extend beyond the rear wall of original house by more
than three metres or be within seven metres of any boundary opposite the rear wall of the house.” I conclude,
therefore, that the proposed extension, by extending more than 3 metres beyond the rear elevation of the
original dwellinghouse, would not be permitted development”.

The Inspector also rejected a
suggestion by the applicant that a certificate could be issued subject to conditions, and rejected the
appellant’s application for costs against the Council.

Main
Conclusions:

·No conclusions (because too
straightforward).

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):